Not really, unless paying users switch to alternative stores, which they don't just because I as a developer face friction in publishing to Google Play.

In fact, Google is making alternative stores even less convenient with their latest 'side-loading' hurdles.

Regulators need to wake up, issue record fines, mandate equal access and a 'Choose your app stores' screen on device setup.

Otherwise competitive third party stores and a fair market are going to remain a pipe dream.

More generally, I think there should be a legally-enforced right of due process online. Much of the rules of modern society are enforced by these companies, rather than governments, and we should have similar rights.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why it makes sense for a company to have the ability to block spammers, scammers, and malware without proving a case in a court of law, but I feel like there's a spectrum of importance, where the more potentially harmful the action is to the user, the more process is due to the impacted user to make sure the action is justified. Examples from least- to most-important:

   - removing individual content that has little real-world importance: comments, social media posts, etc.
   - banning accounts on platforms that generally have low real-world value (other than sentimental value) to the user: reddit, HN, non-monetized Youtube accounts, etc
   - banning accounts on free platforms that have a very high cost to the user of being banned: Gmail (keys to the user's digital kingdom, the rest of the Google account), Facebook (real-name policy means that it's difficult to start over), high-notoriety accounts on other social media, etc.
   - removing individual listings/etc on platforms where the user makes money: eBay, monetized Youtube videos, paid App/Play store apps, etc
   - Banning accounts on platforms where the user makes money and the account itself has some intrinsic value (reputation, following, etc): eBay, monetized Youtube accounts, App store accounts, social media accounts for businesses, etc.
   - Locking up or taking the user's money: locking the user out of a bank/brokerage/crypto/payment platform account; rescinding money (or other things with monetary value): bank account balances, payment platform balances, unpaid Youtube/other monetization earnings, loyalty/credit card points, etc.
   - Banning accounts that are essential for the user to participate in society: bank account, cell phone plan, identity providers, etc.

Alongside that, I feel like if there's a clear revenue stream to the platform owner from the account, then the case for due process is even stronger -- if the platform is making hundreds or thousands of dollars because of my presence, surely they can have a competent, empowered human look at things when necessary.

I've written about this before on HN, but it's pretty clear that once the app stores courted the hobby developers and convinced them to publish their apps on the stores to get the marketplace flywheel started (remember all the discussion about the app stores competing based on the number of apps available in each?), that the focus wasn't going to be on hobbyist developers at all because they don't bring in the most cash. By imposing ever higher restrictions on app developers in the name of security, they are raising the bar to such a degree that typically only funded corporate customers will have an incentive to go through all the effort, since they can literally pay someone to do so.

In essence, while the app stores used to be about hobbyist software to some degree, they have become a place created by big companies for big companies, much like Walmart or Target. That would be fine if customers could choose when they visited Walmart or Target, but instead, we've created a regime where you must buy everything from Walmart or Target.

This has made mobile development a wasteland for hobbyist-built and community-built software. I know some people cheer this as the removal of amateurs and crappy software from the marketplaces, but I would counter with the observation that commercial software often doesn't have my best interests at heart, and I would, many times, prefer a piece of community-built or amateur software instead. This gets harder to procure with each passing day.

So, I think developers are generally better-served leaving mobile development and instead focusing on web development, which is not gated in the same ways. While you won't have the same reach that you would get through the app stores, you do have much more control over the platform on which you're developing.

I think it's fairly obvious that Google doesn't _want_ hobby developers in the play store at all. Their app development, publication, and review process seems quite intentionally designed to be penetrable only to those who are willing to make it (or already is) their full-time job.

There's just no money in it for them, and a lot of support burden. Hobbyist apps are either free, or a few bucks. For Google, the income is a rounding error compared to ad revenue for household-name apps or in-app purchases inside blockbuster mobile games.

(I will be first in line to buy the first working and affordable Linux smartphone.)

Open a corporation and register as an organization. Easier way to get through.

I also had my old dev account that I used during school permanently disabled.

Because you are hobby developer. Thanks to this there are no so much junk in Play Store. When you open business account you don't need to do this closed test, you go straight to prod.

I mean that's the same argument as youtubers complaining about partner programme enrollment requirements being raised. Do you genuinely think your app should not have 12 testers? What if some youtuber picks it up for a promo, you get 1000 users in a day and all of them hit the same bug or someone finds a way to break the app and read everyone's actions done in the app?

Hobbyist are cool and all but I'm sure google got sick of one update publishers a long time ago and decided to only allow apps that can actually attract any sort of public.

Anybody who's ever tried to get through their review process can attest that the article writer's experience is far from outside the norm.

Although I must admit I've never gotten nudes from them. Up your game, Google.

You know, personal anecdotes and all that, but a company I used to work with was applying for their b2b app as well and we got a denied with a screenshot of a completely unrelated app as well, and that was at least 5 years ago. We ended up just replying "That's not our app" and I think it got stuck in limbo after that as I don't recall hearing anything about it afterwards and then I left the company.

Is this supposed to be some hypocrisy gotcha? It's a guy's personal blog

He's jotting down his thoughts, not trying to be a review process to distribute software on the most used operating system on the planet

They don't have access to the content anymore, as mentioned a bit later in the article.